Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Dear wanks -- let's talk about "civility" for a minute, shall we?

[Dear Free Dominion visitors: Fuck off. Now go away, or I shall have to taunt you a second time.]

You might have noticed that there's been a real "civility" theme going on here lately, so I thought I might -- in the interest of legitimate and genuine discourse -- ask Canada's wankers their opinion on a specific topic, and that would be this:

That would, of course, be the adorable way that Blogging Tory (and offensive cunt) SUZANNE refers to the organization "Status of Women Canada", normally abbreviated "SWC" but, thanks to SUZANNE, now known throughout the blogosphere as "SOW" because, well, you know, it's cute. Or clever. Or something.

And yes, that delightful image does get around, as you can see here at SUZANNE's own blog, as well as (like you couldn't guess) here, at the blog of Canada's Dumbest Blogger, and I'd guess it shows up elsewhere, but I just haven't put in the effort to track down other instances.

And what exactly is the crime of the SWC that it attracted such right-wing enmity? Why, the mandate to support Canadian womens' rights and stuff like that there. The actual story is that Canada's dumbasses were livid that the SWC was being federally funded while engaging in "advocacy", and if said dumbasses wanted to lobby to have that funding cut, well, it's a free country and they certainly have that right.

But that image above -- is that "civil?" Is it really acceptable behaviour to portray your ideological opponents -- en masse -- as "SOW"s and actual pigs?

So, wanks ... let's hear it. You're always so keen to clutch your pearls and have an absolute case of the vapours at the slightest literary offense. So how does that image above fit into your carefully-cultivated delusion of moral superiority? And please ... no bullshit about "Well, they did it first!". We're not talking about bloggers here -- we're talking about a group whose only sin was to advocate for various fundamental rights for Canadian women and children (and most of whom I'm willing to bet you've never even met, so describing them literally and visually as pigs does seem to be pushing the bounds of decorum, wouldn't you say?).

So ... what's the deal here? Can all of us -- both Left and Right -- agree that SUZANNE is an offensive cunt? Or is this going to be another one of your "Well, yeah, but that's different" weaselly evasions, as it always seems to be?

49 comments:

Well, that's different because our tax dollars are being used to promote the rights of and ensure the fair treatment of women, who are plainly no longer "disadvantaged" or seen as holding an inferior position in society.

Still, it's a favourite hobby of conservatives to insult Stéphane Dion by feminizing his name to "Stephanie". Not that there's anything wrong with, you know, being a girl.

I believe the argument would go something along the lines of suggesting that you’re missing the point by personalizing the “attack” which isn’t directed at the women at SWC themselves. Oh, no, no… But is instead directed at the organization itself which is… wait for it: FEEDING AT THE PUBLIC TROUGH. Hence the oh-so clever name.

Laissez faire losers think there's a universe of difference between advocates who receive public money vs advocates who are subsidised through the private sector, forgetting that all that money comes from the same source: "us." They focus on public advocacy because it's subject to much more stringent rules of disclosure, whereas if it's hidden in the byzantine complexity of the private sector, that's just fine and dandy. If you end up being duped by the private sector, well...caveat emptor. That's why they don't seem to have much of a problem with wingnut welfare, which I'm convinced sucks more money from consumers than actual welfare ever could.

Oh, sorry...that had little to do with the topic itself. Believe me when I tell you that it is hopeless, utterly hopeless, to get the self-righteous to accept that they're as base and crass and limited as the rest of us. Their morality is on loan from God and thus, their means are always justified by the ends.

...until they get caught doing something grossly unethical, immoral or illegal. Then they cry and demand forgiveness and are redeemed once again.

I just love this faux civility argument coming from the right side of the blogosphere given their own track records and the records of those they support for routinely using inflammatory language/rhetoric and blanket assertions to smear their opponents (commies, leftards, terrorist sympathizer, unpatriotic, etc, etc, etc) with. For me it is an example of the last defence of a scoundrel, instead of dealing with the substance/content attack the format and thereby not have to show that they cannot actually refute the content/substance. I tend to get one variant of it that being critiqued for length instead of content as if that was somehow a valid argument/critique.

One of the most constant things I have found from the modern NA conservative be they GOP or CPC supporting is the remarkable totality of their tendency to project their own failings upon their opponents/critics. This is only one example of many of that and therefore will not be seriously addressed by the right side of the blogosphere despite the strength and substance of the argument present in the example with Suzanne and SOW (not to mention how many of her fellow travelers also routinely used SOW instead of SWC which was the traditional acronym).

leave us not forget the glowing civility of displaying fragmentary foetuses on the sides of trucks. and red, that's simply the best take i've ever heard on the theory of having a theory. which i understand was yours. in theory. lovely then.

Oh yeah, we were talking about “civility” weren’t we? Way to stay on topic there Scotian! Good man.

It’s such a joke. I’m more offended by intellectual profanity than by any “vulgar” language that might be present in a conversation.

I don't really see it as a moral failing that when confronted by something maddeningly dishonest or craptacular in the most astonishing way, it produces an “intemperate” outburst that may involve some indelicate swear words as part of the reaction.

PSA — Ah yes, the mutilated fetuses on the side of the truck parked at the shopping mall for the kiddy-winks to see. How charming is that? But of course, that’s different and… justified! Because abortion itself is an abomination and the Christo-fascists are simply making us wicked, secular-humanist, materialist baby killers aware of our own appallingly heinous crimes. So we're all good on the moral equivalency front there. Phew!

That of course doesn’t compare in any way at all to the catastrophic offense of telling someone making a heartfelt, although utterly tendentious and politically exploitative call demanding the sacrifice of hundreds of young lives in service of a hopelessly futile cause half way around the world in order to justify or mediate in some way the loss of her own son in that mission, to “fuck off.” See how clear-cut everything is?

Get a moral compass already, would ya. (I think Wal-Mart has them on special this week. Although being made in China they might be a bit dodgy or even spin in a wholly different direction.)

p.s. I can’t take any credit for that “theory” stuff. I owe it all to the nefarious commie, state-owned CBC exposing me to Monty Python many, many years ago.

I'm glad to see your last comment, RT, because I was just about to come in and yell that I don't think drooling over how to kill people (death penalty! yay! war in Iraq! yay! killing in Afghanistan! yay!) is the least bit "civil," and yet the right-wingnuts are thrilled by that stuff.

If the wingnuts get all whiny and teary over being called "fucktards" but feel not a twinge when their compadres wave pom poms for killing people -- then to hell with their idea of "civility." I'll take incivility any day.

Am I the only girl in the thread? Cause if I am - I'd like to take this moment in time to say that I have a serious problem with the word "cunt". It's ugly.

Having said that ... in certain cases, like this one, I think you have to go with the ugly. When dealing with the pathologically stupid and criminally hypocritical, you don't have a lot of options. Because none of the BTs are going to engage CC in what is actually a substantive argument - they'll just shriek about the fact that he swears!!!. Oh ... and the fact that he told Wanda Watkins to fuck off - that one's never getting old as far as they're concerned.

"Oh yeah, we were talking about “civility” weren’t we? Way to stay on topic there Scotian! Good man.

It’s such a joke. I’m more offended by intellectual profanity than by any “vulgar” language that might be present in a conversation." Red Tory 12:51pm

Hey, what can I say, I try to actually address the content of a post wherever possible...:)

Seriously though the last sentence I quoted of yours speaks for me as well. I am far more offended by intellectual profanity (as in treating assertions as proven fact and things like claiming knowledge that is impossible for someone to have as in claiming to know what someone is really thinking despite what they actually are saying, etc) than I have ever been by linguistic profanity, and I was raised in a family environment where profanity was quite frowned upon. It is the intellectual dishonesty and the willingness to treat partisan political rhetoric as proven fact (liberal media conspiracy, liberal activist judges, etc) that is the true profanity in intellectual discourse, especially intellectually honest discourse.

One is entitled to one's own opinion, one is not entitled to one's own facts to support said opinion, and this is where the right side of the blogosphere tends to really have problems with comprehension. It is amazing how often they are willing to treat their own myths about their foes as unequivocal incontrovertible fact while claiming it is their foes that do this. As I said before the constant level of projection one finds from the right side of the spectrum these days is remarkable in scope and constancy, as well as incredibly disturbing and dangerous to any open democratic society governed first by the rule of law and that all are equal under it. This is why I consider them such a clear threat to our way of life, not because they come from the right but because they are so disconnected from reality. I have no use for ideologues regardless of what it is about be it right left center or upside down on the political spectrum. I am many things but I am not nor have ever been an ideologue, indeed one of the main reasons I am incapable of being a party partisan is that I cannot choose to place ideological purity over reality/factual accuracy.

Ok - did everyone miss the part where I said that I thought the word was ugly but completely appropriate in this case?

I noticed. You're new to this blog, I think...at least I haven't seen you comment here before. We've had a discussion several times about the c-word. Since CC's the only blogger who still has the nerve to use it (and I since I adore profanity, the fouler the better), I applaud its (sparing) use against those women who are traitors to other women, particularly as they are using the gains women before them worked so hard to achieve in order to roll back those very same gains.

That's pretty much how the women I know use it, although not publicly, of course. They're far too dainty for that.

I do agree it's an ugly word, though not nearly as ugly as life quite often is.

Lulu, I'm female too. I also cringe at the use of the word "cunt," and really had to think about it for a while. I decided that since I see "prick" and other penis-words used derogatorily as well, then as long as both gendered body parts are getting equal time, then I won't object. (Though that can also depend on the particular circumstance as well.)

Just ribbing you there a bit, Scotian. Crabby and I were goofing around and you went and got all serious on us, you old poop. But yes, I concur with your spot-on impressions and general assessment of the dynamic.

That said, I would perhaps be remiss if I didn’t share this lovely gem ported over from the squalid wastes of DBT’s spunky new website. Here’s the Blowhard of Barrie sagaciously counseling his fellow knob, Patrick Ross:

Patrick, I wouldn’t even try to talk sense into these people. They don’t want to hear it. You see, facts and logic make their minds spin and we all know that Liberals never let fact get in the way of their howling.

And so it goes... One might as well be declaiming to swine when attempting to engage our friends on the Right about matters political. Which brings us rather neatly back to the original point of the post does it not, with its objectionable porcine reference? (Something I have to point out that CC has pointedly employed to great effect himself on a number of occasions.)

I shall now return to my reflections on Euclidean geometry and deformations from the “Golden Mean.”

Hey, I knew what you were doing, I have a fairly good read on your sense of humour and how it works. It is more that I find the topic a serious one for the reasons stated already and that I also really do make a concerted effort to be on topic at least to start with whenever I comment in someone's comment section. Alas though this is my last post for today as I have to head back out to the folks to run them around for groceries and medical appointments tomorrow (I hate getting up at 6am, I know you are used to it but I am not, usually I am falling asleep a few hours earlier than that) and if I stayed home I would have to get up at 4:30 to get out there and then get the parent to the doctor which would be even worse, hence why I am heading out there tonight.

It is really too funny listening/reading people like DBT talking about the inability of everyone else to use facts, although it certainly underscores my comments regarding the amount of projection that tends to be the norm on the right side of the political blogosphere in NA.

As things settle down and I am not running around as much for them I will be able to spend more sustained time online, and I will most certainly take a look at your other site, I would have left this at your primary blog but you had already disabled comments again...:)

It's just about the most loaded word one can use, next to the n-word. And a big problem in using it, even for someone like Suzanne, is you can never be sure how the reader will take it, and what conclusions they will draw about the writer.

I personally prefer to think of her as a partial-birth abortion. One should always refer to a member of a minority by the term they themselves prefer, and she and her ilk sure seem to like that term. We all know it doesn't have any medical meaning, so it must mean something personal to them. Certainly no one could ever accuse her of being a full-fledged human being.

Scotian — Well, what can I say? I’m an impudent sprite amidst the fray. (My day for inadvertently playing Longfellow, it would seem.) I have to take the position that if you can’t scoff at this nonsense to a degree then “the terrorists have won” as the Bushies are fond of saying. I presume you get my drift from that, but for the benefit of any BTs on the short bus who might be looking in, the “terrorists” in this respect aren’t the dirty “ragheads” (as you “family friendly” folks often refer to them with the utmost civility) living in caves, but greasy hacks living elsewhere in rather more comfortable digs.

Ah, no no no no no! We Witches want nothing to do with those specimens of toxic-waste-on-the-hoof!

And as far as civility goes, I'll be polite if others will. And I give points for imagination and creativity in a ranking session. I'm nobody's doormat, though, and I have no problem getting into the gutter if needs be. I can always shower afterwards.

How about douchebag? I like that one because it's a tool of the patriarchy (I mean, hello! Our vaginas are self-cleaning!) Men telling us we're not clean. *snort* And then of course, they're also tools of capitalists. "Woman, buy our useless and harmful crap! You need it, really!"

The problem with the word cunt is that because it is a word exclusively used for women, it insinuates that your problem with her is at least partially that's she is a woman. *I* know that's not the truth, because I'm a faithful reader, and know you're not a sexist pig. However, a good lot of sexism is wrapped up in that word. So if you choose it, knowing the sexism, you're being actively sexist. If you're okay with that, that's fine. You won't lose me (Not that you care, I'm sure *grin*). But I'm not going to agree to calling her that.

um shannon, ballsweat? the c-word is a loaded one for sure. it is the visceral power of it that makes it one of the few remaining cusses that can still shock and offend.. but really, there are no shortage of swears that are male genital-centric. the ever popular 'cocksucker' springs to mind. of course we can't leave out 'motherfucker', 'prick', 'dick', 'dickhead/face/breath/lips etc' and of course there all of the queer cusses meant to impugn the masculinity and thus the power of the victim. in fact, women get off pretty easy in the cussing department. i can't think of a lot beyond 'bitch' and 'whore/slut' and 'witch/harpy/hag' that gets much play.

Its not as though shes being called a vagina. Cunt has that other meaning. Both guys and gals can be cunts though I never heard of calling a girl a prick. The slang word that always makes me gag a a little is "beef curtains".

Funnily enough "cunt" actually has a jumped-up, more purposeful variant in English slang: "cunto."

Perhaps we should all draw from the List of Fictional Expletives in future when dealing with righties. They're quite funny actually. Frak is a particularly useful term with many variants (e.g., toasterfrakker).